Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > The Political Forum
test
The Political Forum Discuss anything related to politics in this forum. World politics, US Politics, State and Local.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 649
MoneyManMatt 490
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Jon Bon 398
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
Starscream66 283
You&Me 281
George Spelvin 270
sharkman29 256
Top Posters
DallasRain70819
biomed163628
Yssup Rider61219
gman4453334
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48791
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino43193
The_Waco_Kid37389
CryptKicker37228
Mokoa36497
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-28-2020, 08:07 AM   #151
Jacuzzme
Premium Access
 
Jacuzzme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 16, 2016
Location: Steel City
Posts: 8,162
Encounters: 44
Default

Your (and that guy’s) math is fear mongering horseshit, a huge steaming pile.

Quote:
The 2% that was used came from a calculation with REAL data. It was not a projection from a computer model.
Did you not even read your own link? He states repeatedly that it is precisely that. The only ‘real data’ available shows a MUCH less dire circumstance.
Jacuzzme is offline   Quote
Old 03-28-2020, 08:11 AM   #152
eccielover
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 24, 2014
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,267
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adav8s28 View Post
The 2% that was used came from a calculation with REAL data. It was not a projection from a computer model. Here is an expert from Harvard who said that up 70% of the population could become infected if you just let the virus go thru the population without any distancing.

It's you people on the right who want to sacrifice old people so that the DJIA can get back to 25,000 points.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronav...ay-2020-03-02/
So yes, exactly what I said. You choose the 2% based on an early study that as it's coming to light is running high compared to actual numbers in the US which are tracking more towards the 1% or even lower rate. Your latest reference to support the 70% said a 1% likely death rate. And the 70% again was the top end of the spectrum with even your link saying 40% - 70%.

Quote:
CBS News spoke to one of the country's top experts on viruses, Marc Lipsitch from Harvard University, who cautions that 40-70% of the world's population will become infected — and from that number, 1% of people who get symptoms from COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, could die. The virus can spread rapidly and people can transmit it before they know they are infected.
So indeed you combined two high end numbers toward the worst case scenarios from different sources to come up with your DemPanic number.

And still no comment on why you choose to use the word "indicate". More DemPanic maybe??
eccielover is offline   Quote
Old 03-28-2020, 10:12 AM   #153
HoeHummer
BANNED
 
HoeHummer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 7, 2019
Location: North
Posts: 3,942
Default

Enjoy the movies, boys.
HoeHummer is offline   Quote
Old 03-28-2020, 10:45 AM   #154
oeb11
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 31, 2009
Location: dallas
Posts: 23,345
Default

little a is far behinid the curve - but desperately wants a high mortality rate for Wuhan virus to justify wrecking the economy and the US - so the DPST socialist totalitarians can stge a coup.
Last night - Brett Giroir MD part of the Wuhan virus task force - stated clearly the best estimates of the Wuhan virus case mortality rate is around 0.1% - a real blow to the hopes and aspirations of the DPST's!
This is a level comparable to influenza a - over which we do not shut down the world and economy.

That estimate of mortality may well be significantly lower - as we know the uncounted asymptomatic and minimally symptomatic non-diagnosed are not counted - and reasonably inflate the denominator by likely at least a factor of 10.




Facts never once deterred a DPST in support of the narrative "Truth" - and they all think they are medical experts from reading the WaPo on the net.

I knew and worked with Dr. Giroir early in career. He is very talented - and working for All Americans - unlike the DPST's who will do anything, say any Lie - to convert the Wuhan Virus into an anti- Trump political football.
oeb11 is offline   Quote
Old 03-28-2020, 11:02 AM   #155
adav8s28
Valued Poster
 
adav8s28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 4, 2011
Location: sacremento
Posts: 3,664
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacuzzme View Post

Did you not even read your own link? He states repeatedly that it is precisely that. The only ‘real data’ available shows a MUCH less dire circumstance.

That study analyzed 72,314 patient records, including some that were suspected cases. It determined that coronavirus had an “overall case fatality rate of 2.3%.” The study was called Vital Surveillances: The Epidemiological Characteristics of an Outbreak of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Diseases (COVID-19) and it was conducted by the Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Emergency Response Epidemiology Team.


https://heavy.com/news/2020/02/coron...h-rate-vs-flu/

JC, what study are you talking about?

The study calculated a death rate of 2.3% I used 2% in the calculation. There aren't any studies using real data that calculate a death rate of 1%. The computer models PROJECT 1%, that is not based on REAL data.
adav8s28 is offline   Quote
Old 03-28-2020, 11:07 AM   #156
oeb11
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 31, 2009
Location: dallas
Posts: 23,345
Default

little a - your link is a non-starter.

u are not any kind of authority on the issues u are trying to pervert with fake numbers.

u cannot even define the difference between a physical sign and a diagnosis.

u are not worth reaading- just a DPST using fantasy to try to bring down the POTUS - with Trump hate Ur motivation.
Pathetic.
oeb11 is offline   Quote
Old 03-28-2020, 11:46 AM   #157
adav8s28
Valued Poster
 
adav8s28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 4, 2011
Location: sacremento
Posts: 3,664
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oeb11 View Post
your link is a non-starter.
Link works. The only DPST is in your little mind little O.
adav8s28 is offline   Quote
Old 03-28-2020, 12:22 PM   #158
Jacuzzme
Premium Access
 
Jacuzzme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 16, 2016
Location: Steel City
Posts: 8,162
Encounters: 44
Default

Quote:
JC, what study are you talking about?
Yours, knucklehead.

—“That is a projection, so we will find out if it's accurate as things go on.”

—“If it really does spread as widely as that projection says, and that's what I think is likely to happen.”

Not to mention that the interview is from weeks ago when ‘real data’ was virtually nonexistent. We now have small population countries, like Iceland and Lichtenstein who can reliably extrapolate their testing, showing numbers that are exponentially less frightening.

Millions of Americans aren’t going to die, regardless of your raging boner for that to happen.
Jacuzzme is offline   Quote
Old 03-28-2020, 03:51 PM   #159
eccielover
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 24, 2014
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,267
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by adav8s28 View Post
That study analyzed 72,314 patient records, including some that were suspected cases. It determined that coronavirus had an “overall case fatality rate of 2.3%.” The study was called Vital Surveillances: The Epidemiological Characteristics of an Outbreak of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Diseases (COVID-19) and it was conducted by the Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia Emergency Response Epidemiology Team.


https://heavy.com/news/2020/02/coron...h-rate-vs-flu/

JC, what study are you talking about?

The study calculated a death rate of 2.3% I used 2% in the calculation. There aren't any studies using real data that calculate a death rate of 1%. The computer models PROJECT 1%, that is not based on REAL data.
And yet again, the "expert" you cited in your reference to the worst case scenario 40-70% of infection said 1% death rate. Is he only an expert on the spread rate and not the death rate?

Quote:
CBS News spoke to one of the country's top experts on viruses, Marc Lipsitch from Harvard University, who cautions that 40-70% of the world's population will become infected — and from that number, 1% of people who get symptoms from COVID-19, the disease caused by the coronavirus, could die. The virus can spread rapidly and people can transmit it before they know they are infected.
Admit it, you are cherry picking near the top end statistics of different articles to continue your DemPanic.

And speaking of DemPanic, any updates on why you choose to use the word "indicate"?
eccielover is offline   Quote
Reply



AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved